Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

Mina v.

Pascual, 25 Phil 540

REPUBLIC v. BAGTAS Francisco is the owner of land and he allowed his brother, Andres, to erect a
warehouse in that lot. Both Francisco and Andres died and their children
Facts: Bagtas borrowed three bulls from the Bureau of Animal Industry for one became their respective heirs: Mina for Francisco and Pascual for Andres.
year for breeding purposes subject to payment of breeding fee of 10% of book Pascual sold his share of the warehouse and lot. Mina opposed because the lot
value of the bull. Upon expiration, Bagtas asked for renewal. The renewal was is hers because her predecessor (Francisco) never parted with its ownership
granted only to one bull. Bagtas offered to buy the bulls at its book value less when he let Andres construct a warehouse, hence, it was a contract of
depreciation but the Bureau refused. The Bureau said that Bagtas should either commodatum. What is the nature of the contract between Francisco and
return or buy it at book value. Bagtas proved that he already returned two of Andres?
the bulls, and the other bull died during a Huk raid, hence, obligation already
extinguished. He claims that the contract is a commodatum hence, loss The Supreme Court held that it was not a commodatum. It is an essential
through fortuitous event should be borne by the owner. feature of commodatum that the use of the thing belonging to another shall be
for a certain period. The parties never fixed a definite period during which
Issue: WON Bagtas is liable for the death of the bull. Andres could use the lot and afterwards return it.
Held: Yes. Commodatum is essentially gratuitous. However, in this case, there NOTA BENE: It would seem that the Supreme Court failed to consider the
is a 10% charge. If this is considered compensation, then the case at bar is a possibility of a contract of precardium between Francisco and Andres.
lease. Lessee is liable as possessor in bad faith because the period already Precardium is a kind of commodatum wherein the bailor may demand the
lapsed. Even if this is a commodatum, Bagtas is still liable because the object at will if the contract does not stipulate a period or use to which the
fortuitous event happened when he held the bull and the period stipulated thing is devoted.
already expired and he is liable because the thing loaned was delivered with
appraisal of value and there was no contrary stipulation regarding his liability Catholic Vicar vs. CA, 165 SCRA 515
in case there is a fortuitous event.
Facts:- 1962: Catholic Vicar Apostolic of the Mountain Province (Vicar),
REPUBLIC VS BAGTAS G.R. No. L-17474 October 25, 1962 petitioner, filed with the court an application for the registration of title over
lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 situated in Poblacion Central, Benguet, said lots being used as
FACTS: Jose Bagtas borrowed from the Bureau of Animal Industry three bulls sites of the Catholic Church, building, convents, high school building, school
for a period of one year for breeding purposes subject to a government charge gymnasium, dormitories, social hall and stonewalls.
of breeding fee of 10% of the book value of the books. Upon the expiration of - 1963: Heirs of Juan Valdez and Heirs of Egmidio Octaviano claimed that they
the contract, Bagtas asked for a renewal for another one year, however, the have ownership over lots 1, 2 and 3. (2 separate civil cases)
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources approved only the renewal for - 1965: The land registration court confirmed the registrable title of Vicar to
one bull and other two bulls be returned. Bagtas then wrote a letter to the lots 1 , 2, 3 and 4. Upon appeal by the private respondents (heirs), the decision
Director of Animal Industry that he would pay the value of the three bulls with of the lower court was reversed. Title for lots 2 and 3 were cancelled.- VICAR
a deduction of yearly depreciation. The Director advised him that the value filed with the Supreme Court a petition for review on certiorari of the decision
cannot be depreciated and asked Bagtas to either return the bulls or pay their of the Court of Appeals dismissing his application for registration of Lots 2
book value. Bagtas neither paid nor returned the bulls. The Republic then and 3.
commenced an action against Bagtas ordering him to return the bulls or pay
their book value. - During trial, the Heirs of Octaviano presented one (1) witness, who testified
DECISION OF LOWER COURTS: * Trial court: After hearing, the trial Court on the alleged ownership of the land in question (Lot 3) by their predecessor-
ruled in favor of the Republic, as such, the Republic moved ex parte for a writ in-interest, Egmidio Octaviano; his written demand to Vicar for the return of
of execution which the court granted. the land to them; and the reasonable rentals for the use of the land at P10,000
per month. On the other hand, Vicar presented the Register of Deeds for the
INTERVENING FACT: Felicidad Bagtas, the surviving spouse and Province of Benguet, Atty. Sison, who testified that the land in question is not
administrator of Bagtas' estate, returned the two bulls and filed a motion to covered by any title in the name of Egmidio Octaviano or any of the heirs.
quash the writ of execution since one bull cannot be returned for it was killed Vicar dispensed with the testimony of Mons. Brasseur when the heirs admitted
by gunshot during a Huk raid. The Court denied her motion hence, this appeal that the witness if called to the witness stand, would testify that Vicar has been
certified by the Court of Appeals because only questions of law are raised. in possession of Lot 3, for 75 years continuously and peacefully and has
constructed permanent structures thereon.
ISSUES & RULING: 1. WON the contract was commodatum; WON Bagtas
should be held liable for its loss due to force majeure. Issue: WON Vicar had been in possession of lots 2 and 3 merely as bailee
borrower in commodatum, a gratuitous loan for use.
NO, the contract is not commodatum. YES, he is liable for the loss.
Held: YES.
A contract of commodatum is essentially gratuitous. Supreme Court held that
Bagtas was liable for the loss of the bull even though it was caused by a Private respondents were able to prove that their predecessors' house was
fortuitous event. If the contract was one of lease, then the 10% breeding charge borrowed by petitioner Vicar after the church and the convent were destroyed.
is compensation (rent) for the use of the bull and Bagtas, as lessee, is subject to They never asked for the return of the house, but when they allowed its free
the responsibilities of a possessor. He is also in bad faith because he continued use, they became bailors in commodatum and the petitioner the bailee.
to possess the bull even though the term of the contract has already expired.
The bailees' failure to return the subject matter of commodatum to the bailor
If the contract was one of commodatum, he is still liable because: (1) he kept did not mean adverse possession on the part of the borrower. The bailee held
the bull longer than the period stipulated; and (2) the thing loaned has been in trust the property subject matter of commodatum. The adverse claim of
delivered with appraisal of its value (10%). No stipulation that in case of loss petitioner came only in 1951 when it declared the lots for taxation purposes.
of the bull due to fortuitous event the late husband of the appellant would be The action of petitioner Vicar by such adverse claim could not ripen into title
exempt from liability. by way of ordinary acquisitive prescription because of the absence of just title.
The original period of the loan was from 8 May 1948 to 7 May 1949. The loan The Court of Appeals found that petitioner Vicar did not meet the requirement
of one bull was renewed for another period of one year to end on 8 May 1950. of 30 years possession for acquisitive prescription over Lots 2 and 3. Neither
But the appellant kept and used the bull until November 1953 when during a did it satisfy the requirement of 10 years possession for ordinary acquisitive
Huk raid it was killed by stray bullets. Furthermore, when lent and delivered prescription because of the absence of just title. The appellate court did not
to the deceased husband of the appellant the bulls had each an appraised book believe the findings of the trial court that Lot 2 was acquired from Juan Valdez
value, to with: the Sindhi, at P1,176.46, the Bhagnari at P1,320.56 and the by purchase and Lot 3 was acquired also by purchase from Egmidio Octaviano
Sahiniwal at P744.46. It was not stipulated that in case of loss of the bull due by petitioner Vicar because there was absolutely no documentary evidence to
to fortuitous event the late husband of the appellant would be exempt from support the same and the alleged purchases were never mentioned in the
liability. application for registration.
Republic vs CA the furniture transferred to him for them in the house where they were found.
On November 5, 1936, the defendant, through another person, wrote to
FACTS: The Heirs of Domingo Baloy, (private respondents), applied for a the plaintiff reiterating that she may call for the furniture in the ground floor
registration of title for their land. Their claim is based on their possessory of the house. On the 7th of the same month, the defendant wrote another letter
information title acquired by Domingo Baloy through the Spanish Mortgage to the plaintiff informing her that he could not give up the three gas heaters
Law, coupled with their continuous, adverse and public possession of the and the four electric lamps because he would use them until the 15th of the
land in question. The Director of Lands opposed the registration alleging that same month when the lease in due to expire. The plaintiff refused to get the
such land became public land through the operation of Act 627 of the furniture in view of the fact that the defendant had declined to make delivery
Philippine Commission. On Nov 26, 1902, pursuant to the executive order of of all of them. On November 15th, before vacating the house, the
the President of U.S., the area was declared within the US Naval Reservation. defendant deposited with the Sheriff all the furniture belonging to the plaintiff
The CFI denied respondents' application for registration. CA, reversed the and they are now on deposit in the warehouse situated at No. 1521, Rizal
decision. Petitioners herein filed their Motion for Reconsideration, said MR Avenue, in the custody of the said sheriff.
was denied, hence this petition for review on certiorari.
In their seven assigned errors the plaintiffs contend that the trial court
ISSUE: Whether or not private respondents' rights by virtue of their incorrectly applied the law: in holding that they violated the contract by not
possessory information title was lost by prescription. calling for all the furniture on November 5, 1936, when the defendant placed
them at their disposal; in not ordering the defendant to pay them the value of
RULING: No. A communication which contains an official statement of the the furniture in case they are not delivered; in holding that they should get all
position of the Republic of the Philippines with regard to the status of the the furniture from the Sheriff at their expenses; in ordering them to pay-half of
land in question recognizes the fact that Domingo Baloy and/or his heirs the expenses claimed by the Sheriff for the deposit of the furniture; in ruling
have been in continuous possession of said land since 1894 as attested by an that both parties should pay their respective legal expenses or the costs; and in
"Informacion Possessoria" Title, which was granted by the Spanish denying pay their respective legal expenses or the costs; and in denying the
Government. Hence, the disputed property is private land and this motions for reconsideration and new trial. To dispose of the case, it is only
possession was interrupted only by the occupation of the land by the U.S. necessary to decide whether the defendant complied with his obligation to
Navy in 1945. The heirs of the late Domingo P. Baloy, are now in actual return the furniture upon the plaintiff's demand; whether the latter is bound
possession, and this has been so since the abandonment by the U.S. Navy. to bear the deposit fees thereof, and whether she is entitled to the costs of
The occupancy of the U.S. Navy was not in the concept of owner. It holds of litigation.lawphi1.net
the character of a commodatum. It cannot affect the title of Domingo Baloy.
The contract entered into between the parties is one of commadatum,
One's ownership of a thing may be lost by prescription by reason of another's
because under it the plaintiff gratuitously granted the use of the furniture to
possession if such possession be under claim of ownership, not where the
the defendant, reserving for herself the ownership thereof; by this contract the
possession is only intended to be temporary, as in the case of the U.S. Navy's
defendant bound himself to return the furniture to the plaintiff, upon the
occupation of the land concerned, in which case the owner is not divested of
latters demand (clause 7 of the contract, Exhibit A; articles 1740, paragraph 1,
his title, although it cannot be exercised in the meantime
and 1741 of the Civil Code). The obligation voluntarily assumed by the
defendant to return the furniture upon the plaintiff's demand, means that he
Delos Santos v. Jarra Digest
should return all of them to the plaintiff at the latter's residence or house. The
G.R. No. L-4150 February 10, 1910 Facts: The Plaintiff Felix delos Santos filed defendant did not comply with this obligation when he merely placed them at
this suit against Agustina Jarra. Jarra was the administratix of the estate of the disposal of the plaintiff, retaining for his benefit the three gas heaters and
Jimenea. Plaintiff alleged that he owned 10 1st class carabaos which he lent to the four eletric lamps. The provisions of article 1169 of the Civil Code cited by
his father-in-law Jimenea to be used in the animal-power mill without counsel for the parties are not squarely applicable. The trial court, therefore,
compensation. This was done on the condition of their return after the work erred when it came to the legal conclusion that the plaintiff failed to comply
at the latter’s mill is terminated. When delos Santos demanded the return of with her obligation to get the furniture when they were offered to her.
the animals Jimenea refused, hence this suit.
As the defendant had voluntarily undertaken to return all the furniture
to the plaintiff, upon the latter's demand, the Court could not legally compel
Issue: W/N the contracts is one of a commodatum
her to bear the expenses occasioned by the deposit of the furniture at the
defendant's behest. The latter, as bailee, was not entitled to place the furniture
Ruling: YES. The carabaos were given on commodatum as these were
on deposit; nor was the plaintiff under a duty to accept the offer to return the
delivered to be used by defendant. Upon failure of defendant to return the
furniture, because the defendant wanted to retain the three gas heaters and the
cattle upon demand, he is under the obligation to indemnify the plaintiff by
four electric lamps.
paying him their value. Since the 6 carabaos were not the property of the
deceased or of any of his descendants, it is the duty of the administratrix of As to the value of the furniture, we do not believe that the plaintiff is
the estate to either return them or indemnify the owner thereof of their value. entitled to the payment thereof by the defendant in case of his inability to
return some of the furniture because under paragraph 6 of the stipulation of
Quintos vs. Beck, No. 46240, November 3, 1939, 69 Phil 108
facts, the defendant has neither agreed to nor admitted the correctness of the
IMPERIAL, J.: said value. Should the defendant fail to deliver some of the furniture, the value
thereof should be latter determined by the trial Court through evidence which
The plaintiff brought this action to compel the defendant to return her the parties may desire to present.
certain furniture which she lent him for his use. She appealed from the
judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila which ordered that the The costs in both instances should be borne by the defendant because the
defendant return to her the three has heaters and the four electric lamps found plaintiff is the prevailing party (section 487 of the Code of Civil Procedure).
in the possession of the Sheriff of said city, that she call for the other furniture The defendant was the one who breached the contract of commodatum, and
from the said sheriff of Manila at her own expense, and that the fees which the without any reason he refused to return and deliver all the furniture upon the
Sheriff may charge for the deposit of the furniture be paid pro rata by both plaintiff's demand. In these circumstances, it is just and equitable that he pay
parties, without pronouncement as to the costs. the legal expenses and other judicial costs which the plaintiff would not have
otherwise defrayed.
The defendant was a tenant of the plaintiff and as such occupied the
latter's house on M. H. del Pilar street, No. 1175. On January 14, 1936, upon the The appealed judgment is modified and the defendant is ordered to
novation of the contract of lease between the plaintiff and the defendant, the return and deliver to the plaintiff, in the residence to return and deliver to the
former gratuitously granted to the latter the use of the furniture described in plaintiff, in the residence or house of the latter, all the furniture described in
the third paragraph of the stipulation of facts, subject to the condition that the paragraph 3 of the stipulation of facts Exhibit A. The expenses which may be
defendant would return them to the plaintiff upon the latter's demand. The occasioned by the delivery to and deposit of the furniture with the Sheriff shall
plaintiff sold the property to Maria Lopez and Rosario Lopez and on be for the account of the defendant. the defendant shall pay the costs in both
September 14, 1936, these three notified the defendant of the conveyance, instances. So ordered.
giving him sixty days to vacate the premises under one of the clauses of the
contract of lease. There after the plaintiff required the defendant to return all

Похожие интересы